Standing Up for Liberals: Against Nader, for Kerry

Even if one accepts the dubious claim that Ralph Nader is the
more principled presidential candidate, there is no compelling
reason to vote for him over John Kerry. Those supporting Nader
often argue that his unflagging commitment to his principles is
what makes his campaign attractive. Ignoring for the moment the
financial collaboration between Nader and the right wing, it is
worth investigating the Nader campaign’s ideology on its own
terms. Even a mere reconstruction of the arguments put forth by
Nader supporters reveals a serious deficit of critical thought.

If one holds left-wing beliefs, so the pro-Nader argument goes,
one must vote for the candidate who best corresponds to those
beliefs. A voter who does not believe in the death penalty and the
war in Iraq, and who does believe in a national health care system
and a higher minimum wage ought to vote for Nader. Nader supporters
cite the consistency with which Nader sticks to his principles as
outweighing the claim by many Kerry supporters that Nader will
spoil the election and cause President Bush to be in office for
four more years.

The claim that those who hold the most liberal beliefs must
realize them by voting for the most liberal candidate relies on a
rigid distinction between political belief and practice. This view
follows that there are things that one believes, and there are
things that one does, and an ethically responsible action is one
that consists in a unity of the two. Similarly, the faith and
consistency of President Bush is often referenced by Republicans as
more important than what he has done, and is given as a reason to
vote for Bush over a candidate who flip-flops. In this sense, Nader
supporters share in the conservative idea that what one believes is
both fundamentally distinct from-—and more important
than—the effect of one’s actions.

This dichotomy between political belief and political practice
is not a new one. Many religious and philosophical thinkers have
insisted upon the divide between the inner and outer self, the
sacred and the profane, the religious and the secular.

What is worth examining about these dichotomies is not that they
are either correct or incorrect, but rather how they are made
manifest in the world. Anyone with an ethically sophisticated
position about the election must undertake a critical engagement
with these dichotomies. There is no reason to uncritically endorse
a political movement that views belief as utterly stable and that
insists that people living in red states hold fundamentally
different beliefs than people living in blue states.

This is not at all to accept the trite line that argues that
realist voters will vote for Kerry, whereas only an idealist would
cast a vote for Nader. Nor is this to say that belief does not
exist or to say dismissively that it is just a construct. Political
beliefs and principles do exist and are worth taking seriously
precisely because they are constructed, but they need not be taken
at face value.

Perhaps I have been overly charitable in my view of
Nader’s campaign, which openly receives financial support
from many Republican Party apparatchiks. The primary argument
against Nader might indeed stem from his campaign’s practical
collaboration with the right wing. Nevertheless, what I want to
stress here is the ideological collaboration between Nader
supporters and the right wing, both of which share an
ill-considered insistence on dividing people into believers and
non-believers.

Not only is Nader’s campaign no alternative to the
two-party system in the sense that it has no chance of electoral
success, but it fails to be an alternative, even in a merely
ideological sense. Through its opposition to liberal candidates,
the Nader campaign is complicit with the destruction of the
American left.

It should be obvious that there are substantive material and
political differences between Kerry and Bush. Because of these
differences, Kerry supporters should not feel as though they are
betraying their principles in casting a vote simply to oust the
current regime.

Furthermore, there is no reason for Kerry supporters even to
express sympathy with Nader and thus to feel guilty about voting
for Kerry. The practice of stopping the radical right must have
primacy over the desire for purity of the left.

Greg Woodward is a Columbia College senior majoring in
religion.